Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)


Governor's Room (Omni Shoreham)

Psychiatric Residences: Neighborhood Characteristics, Neighborhood Relations, and Nimby

Allison Zippay, PhD, Rutgers University.

Purpose: Community integration is a primary goal of community-based housing for individuals with severe mental illness. Though much attention has been focused on NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) protests, we have little empirical evidence about long-term relations with neighbors, and the affects of siting strategies and locational choices on those relations. Through data collected from interviews with housing administrators, residential staff, and neighbors, this study examines the ways in which locational strategies and neighborhood characteristics affect social interaction.

Methodology: This study is a mixed-methods, multi-phased examination of the locational strategies and choices, and neighborhood relations for shared, supervised residences for persons with severe mental illness in seven states (Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas). The sampling frame consisted of lists from the State Departments of Mental Health in each state of all public and private organizations that received state funds to provide community-based housing for individuals with mental illness. An interview was conducted with one housing administrator from each listed organization about the locational strategies and neighborhood relations at their most recently sited psychiatric residence, and 169 administrators were interviewed with a response rate of 84%. Those respondents provided the names of an on-site supervisor for 148 of the sites they described, and interviews were conducted with 138 of those staff regarding the neighborhood interactions of the housing residents. Telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of over 1,000 neighbors living within one-half miles of the sites regarding their perceptions of the effects of the residence on neighborhood quality of life. Demographic characteristics for each of the housing sites were collected from the 2000 U.S. Census.

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through the structured interviews. Each of the quantitative data sets was analyzed discretely, and selected variables from each source were then merged to triangulate findings. Content analysis was used to code patterns and themes emerging from open-ended responses.

Findings: Agencies that notified neighbors in advance of the establishment of the site were significantly more likely to experience initial neighborhood opposition, but reports from administrators and on-site staff indicated that such opposition was seldom enduring beyond the first year of opening. Notably, neighbors who reported that the psychiatric residence had a positive impact on neighborhood quality of life were significantly more likely to live in neighborhoods that had been notified of the site, and to have received outreach efforts from agency staff. Few residents of the housing sites had substantive relationships with neighbors; but the frequency and intensity of interactions with neighbors were significantly associated with neighborhood density. Administrators were most likely to site in dense, walkable, mixed-used neighborhoods to facilitate community access and, as one indicator of social inclusion, 97%of site staff said that residents regularly and independently visited neighborhood stores, restaurants, and public spaces.

Implications for practice: Within this sample, positive neighborhood relations and community interaction were associated with the practice of agency-sponsored “post-siting” exchanges with neighbors (open-houses, participation in neighborhood events) and the siting of residences in mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented, dense neighborhoods